alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gregory J. Dawson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/   Gregory J. Dawson   |
|--------|---------------------------|
|   | Chief   Financial Officer |
|   |                      |
|   | March 31,   2011     |

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and will be retained by Kentucky Bancshares, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

 

----
#### SNODGRASS V. JACKSON, ET AL.

*Equity.*

(Decided June 13, 1907.)

Appeal from Jackson Chancery Court.

Heard before Hon. W. H. Simpson.

Virgil Bouldin, for appellant.

Bilbro & Moody, for appellee.

Dowdell, J.

Affirmed on authority of *Jackson v. Snodgrass,*140 Ala. 255; 37 South. 246.

Tyson, C. J., Anderson and McClellan, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be

published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 16, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-50617

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 PlaintiffAppellee,

versus

MARCO GARCIA,

 DefendantAppellant.

----------------------------------------------------------

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. DR-01-CR-388-1-OG

----------------------------------------------------------

Before JONES, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Marco Garcia appeals his conviction on one count of obstructing the administration ofjustice.

18 U.S.C. § 1503. He argues that (1) the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction, (2) the

district court erred in denying his motion for a new trial based on the insufficiency of the evidence,

and (3) the district court’s jury instructions constructively amended his indictment.
 

-2-

To prove that Garcia obstructed justice, the Government had to establish that: (1) a judicial

proceeding was pending; (2) Garcia knew of the judicial proceeding; and (3) Garcia acted corruptly

with the specific intent to influence, obstruct, or impede that proceeding in its due administration of

justice. See United States v. Sharpe, 193 F.3d 852, 864 (5th Cir. 1999); 18 U.S.C. § 1503.

Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the jury’s verdict, a reasonable trier of fact

could have found that the evidence established Garcia’s knowledge of a pending judicial proceeding

involvingTerry Sparkman. See United States v. Mendoza, 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5thCir. 2000); United

States v. Howard, 569 F.2d 1331, 1336-37 (5thCir. 1978). The evidence was also sufficient to allow

a reasonable trier of fact to conclude that, by informing Sparkman that his name was before a grand

jury, Garcia had the specific intent to obstruct the due administration ofjustice. See Sharpe, 193 F.3d

at 865. 

Because we have determined that the evidence wassufficient to support Garcia’s conviction,

the district court’s denial of Garcia’s motion for a new trial based on the alleged insufficiency of the

evidence was not an abuse of its discretion.

See United States v. Ortiz, 942 F.2d 903, 913 (5th Cir. 1991).

Due to Garcia’s failure to raise the issue in the district court, our review of Garcia’s

constructive amendment argument is limited to plain error. See United States v. Fletcher, 121 F.3d

187, 192-93 (5th Cir. 1997). Our review of the indictment and the jury charge fails to show such

error. See United States v. Mikolajczyk, 137 F.3d 237, 244 (5th Cir. 1998). 

AFFIRMED.
# C_2020045EN.01003301.xml

| 10.2.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 45/33 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.2.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 45/33

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Vrhovni sud (Croatia) lodged on 5 December 2019 — Russian Federation

(Case C-897/19)

(2020/C 45/31)

Language of the case: Croatian

Referring court

Vrhovni sud

Parties to the main proceedings

I.N.

Russian Federation

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of the European Union which gives a ruling on the extradition to a third State of a national of a State that is not a Member State of the European Union but is a Member State of the Schengen area is required to inform that Member State of the Schengen area which granted nationality to that person of the extradition request? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 18 TFEU be interpreted as meaning that a Member State of the European Union which gives a ruling on the extradition to a third State of a national of a State that is not a Member State of the European Union but is a Member State of the Schengen area is required to inform that Member State of the Schengen area which granted nationality to that person of the extradition request?

| 2. | If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative and the Member State of the Schengen area has requested the surrender of that person in order to conduct the proceedings in respect of which extradition is requested, must that person be surrendered to that State, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the answer to the preceding question is in the affirmative and the Member State of the Schengen area has requested the surrender of that person in order to conduct the proceedings in respect of which extradition is requested, must that person be surrendered to that State, in accordance with the Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Iceland and the Kingdom of Norway on the surrender procedure between the Member States of the European Union and Iceland and Norway?

---
# C_2020161EN.01002201.xml

| 11.5.2020 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 161/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.5.2020

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 161/22

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Győri Ítélőtábla (Hungary) lodged on 20 December 2019 — J.Z. v OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt. and Others

(Case C-932/19)

(2020/C 161/29)

Language of the case: Hungarian

Referring court

Győri Ítélőtábla

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: J.Z.

Defendants: OTP Jelzálogbank Zrt., OTP Bank Nyrt., OTP Faktoring Követeléskezelő Zrt.

Question referred

Does Article 6(1) of Council Directive 93/13/EEC (1) on unfair terms in consumer contracts preclude a rule of national law which, in loan agreements concluded with consumers, states that terms — with the exception of contractual terms which have been individually negotiated — pursuant to which the financial institution stipulates that, for the purpose of paying out the amount of finance granted for the purchase of the subject of the loan or financial leasing, the buying rate is to apply, and that, for the purpose of repayment of the debt, the selling rate, or a different exchange rate from that set when the loan was paid out, is to apply, are to be void, and replaces the void terms with a provision which, in the case of both disbursement and repayment, applies the official exchange rate set by the National Bank of Hungary for the currency in question, without considering whether — in the light of all of the terms in the contract — that provision actually protects the consumer against particularly unfavourable consequences, and also without giving the consumer the opportunity to express a view as to whether he wishes to avail himself of the protection afforded by that legislative provision?

---

(1)  OJ 1993 L 95, p. 29, Special edition in Hungarian Chapter 15 Volume 002 P. 288 — 293.

---
CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302


OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I,
Yonglin Du, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this Form 10-K of Dahua Inc.




2.           Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3.           Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;




4.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated
subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly
during the period in which this report is being prepared;




b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and




c)
disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over
financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal
quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)
that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and




5.           The
registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s Board of
Directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):




a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and




b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting.





Date:   March
23, 2009





Yonglin
      Du, President & CEO(Principal
      Executive Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                             EXHIBIT 10.11



                               AMENDMENT TO AMENDED AND
                               RESTATED PROMISSORY NOTE
                                           
    Reference is made to that certain Promissory Note dated December 6, 1995,
as Amended and Restated on June 3, 1996, in the aggregate principal amount of
$888,019, by Technology Flavors & Fragrances, Inc. ("TFF"), to Seafla, Inc. (now
known as RRHDH, Inc., the "Payee") (the "Note").  The undersigned hereby agree
to amend the Note as follows:

    1.   The initial installment payment of $177, 603.80 due January 1, 1997,
plus $106,562 in interest accrued thereon from January 1, 1997 to December 31,
1997, shall be payable on March 31, 1998.  Each additional installment payment
thereafter of $177, 603.80 plus accrued interest shall be payable on the first
day of January of each succeeding year thereafter until January 1, 2002, on
which date the balance due, if any, of principal and interest, will be paid.

    2.   In consideration for the foregoing, TFF agrees that all interest
accrued from December 6, 1995 through December 31, 1996, totaling $102,767,
shall be paid in nine (9) equal monthly installments of $10,000, on the
fifteenth day of each month commencing on April 15, 1997, with a final
installment of $12,767 to be paid on January 15, 1998.

    3.   Except as expressly set forth above, the remaining provisions of the
Note shall remain in full force and effect.

    AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED THIS 26TH DAY OF MARCH, 1997.

RRHDH, INC. (F/K/A) SEAFLA, INC.)                TECHNOLOGY FLAVORS &
                                                 FRAGRANCES, INC.

By:  /s/ RICHARD HIGGINS                         By: /s/ PHILIP ROSNER    
    --------------------------------------           ------------------
    Name:     Richard Higgins                    Name:     Philip Rosner
    Title:    President                          Title:    President
# C_2022463EN.01002202.xml

| 5.12.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 463/22 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.12.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 463/22

---

Judgment of the General Court of 12 October 2022 –Corneli v ECB

(Case T-502/19) (1)

(Economic and monetary union - Banking union - Recovery and resolution of credit institutions - Early intervention measures - Decision of the ECB to place Banca Carige under temporary administration - Action for annulment - Action brought by a shareholder - Standing to bring proceedings - Interest separate from that of the bank - Admissibility - Error of law in the determination of the legal basis - Interpretation of national law by the EU Courts in conformity with EU law - Limit - Prohibition on interpreting national law contra legem)

(2022/C 463/30)

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Applicant: Francesca Corneli (Velletri, Italy) (represented by: M. Condinanzi, L. Boggio and F. Ferraro, lawyers)

Defendant: European Central Bank (represented by: C. Hernández Saseta, A. Pizzolla and G. Marafioti, acting as Agents)

Intervener in support of the defendant: European Commission (represented by: V. Di Bucci, D. Triantafyllou and A. Nijenhuis, acting as Agents)

Re:

By her action under Article 263 TFEU, the applicant seeks annulment of ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration, as well as of any consequent or subsequent act, including, inter alia, ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Annuls ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-11 of 1 January 2019 placing Banca Carige SpA under temporary administration and ECB Decision ECB-SSM-2019-ITCAR-13 of 29 March 2019 extending the duration of the period of temporary administration up to 30 September 2019;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli; |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the European Central Bank (ECB) to bear its own costs and to pay those incurred by Ms Francesca Corneli;

| 4. | Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs. |
| --- | --- |

4.

Declares that the European Commission is to bear its own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 312, 16.9.2019.

---
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 27 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Leroy Arthur Petry of the 

United States Army, a native of Santa Fe, New Mexico, 

was awarded the Medal of Honor by President Obama on 

July 12, 2011; 

Whereas the Medal of Honor is the highest honor awarded 

to members of the Armed Forces for valor in combat; 

Whereas the official citation awarding the Medal of Honor to 

Sergeant First Class Petry states that then-Staff Sergeant Petry ‘‘distinguished himself by acts of gallantry 

and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond 

the call of duty in action with an armed enemy in the vicinity of Paktya Province, Afghanistan, on May 26, 

2008’’; 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry joins an elite group of 

Medal of Honor recipients dating back to the Civil War; 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry has continued a long 

tradition of military service to the United States by New 

Mexicans, dating back to the defense of the Western 

United States during the Civil War, and followed by participation in every major war fought by the United 

States; 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry is the second living recipient of the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War; 
2 

†SCON 27 ES 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry fought with bravery and, 

despite wounds to both of his legs, had the courage and 

quick thinking needed to save the lives of his fellow soldiers by throwing back an enemy grenade and losing his 

right hand when the grenade detonated shortly after he 

released it; 

Whereas the actions of Sergeant First Class Petry represent 

the highest values of the Army, the Rangers, and the 

United States; 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry has consistently demonstrated humility and dedication to his fellow soldiers; 

Whereas Sergeant First Class Petry, who overcame a troubled youth and found the strength to turn his life around 

and dedicate himself to serving the United States, is an 

example to all people who are struggling in the United 

States; and 

Whereas the brave actions of Sergeant First Class Petry, as 

well as his modesty and selfless service, stand as the embodiment of the best attributes of the people of the 

United States: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) honors the service and sacrifice of Sergeant 

4 First Class Leroy Arthur Petry of the United States 

5 Army and his family; and 

6 (2) encourages the people of the United States 

7 to recognize the valor, heroism, and dedication to 
3 

†SCON 27 ES 

1 the United States exhibited by Sergeant First Class 

2 Petry. 

Passed the Senate September 23, 2011. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
112TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 27 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Honoring the service of Sergeant First Class Leroy 

Honor since the Vietnam War. and the second living recipient of the Medal of Arthur Petry, a native of Santa Fe, New Mexico,
Purchase Agreement dated December 18, 2009



 EXHIBIT 10.1 
 PURCHASE AGREEMENT 
 NetLogic Microsystems, Inc. 
 1875 Charleston Road 
 Mountain View, CA 94043

 Attention: Chief Executive Officer 
 Ladies and Gentlemen: 
 Each undersigned entity (each an “Investor” and collectively the
“Investors”) hereby confirms and agrees with you as follows: 
 1. This Purchase Agreement (the “Agreement”)
is made as of December 18, 2009 between NetLogic Microsystems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), and the Investors. 
 2. Each Investor will purchase from the Company and the Company will issue and sell to each Investor the number of shares of common stock (the “Shares”) of the Company set forth opposite such
Investor’s name on Schedule A for a purchase price of $42.45 per share, or the aggregate purchase price set forth for such Investor on Schedule A. 
 3. The completion of the purchase and sale of the Shares (the “Closing”) shall occur on December 23, 2009. At the Closing, the Company shall deliver to each Investor, using customary
book-entry procedures, the number of Shares set forth for such Investor on Schedule A, and the Investor shall deliver, or cause to be delivered, to the Company by wire transfer funds in the full amount of the purchase price for the Shares being
purchased. 
 4. This Agreement shall be governed by, and construed in accordance with, the internal laws of the State of
California, without giving effect to the principles of conflicts of law. 
 5. This Agreement may be executed in two or more
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute but one instrument, and shall become effective when one or more counterparts have been signed by each party hereto and delivered to the
other parties. 
 Please confirm that the foregoing correctly sets forth the agreement between us by signing in the space
provided below for that purpose. 
  

			
	Name of Investor:	 	Wells Capital Management, as agent for the Schedule A investors


  

			
	By:	 	 /s/ Geoffrey Moore

	Print Name:	 	 Geoffrey Moore

	Title:	 	 Compliance Manager

		 	
	Address:	 	
	
	 
	
	 
	
	 










					
			
		 	Tax ID No.:	 	  

			
		 	Contact Name:	 	  

			
		 	Telephone:	 	  

		
		 	Name in which book-entry should be made (if different):
		
		 	  


  

			
	 AGREED AND ACCEPTED:

	
	 NETLOGIC MICROSYSTEMS, INC.

		
	 By:
	 	 /s/ Michael Tate



			
		
	 Print Name:
	 	 Michael Tate



			
		
	 Title:
	 	 Chief Financial Officer
#### Conservatree Paper Company, Appellant, v State of New York, Respondent.

—Appeal from an order of the Court of Claims (Murray, J.), entered February 19, 1985, which granted the State’s motion to dismiss the claim.

Order affirmed, without costs, upon the opinion of Judge Edward M. Murray of the Court of Claims. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Main, Yesawich, Jr., and Levine, JJ., concur.
#### DONOVAN et al., Respondents, v. AUGER et al., Appellants.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

November 13, 1907.)

Action by Dennis Donovan and another against Armand G. Auger and another.

No opinion. Judgment and order affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF QUINTEL ENTERTAINMENT, INC.

                                                     STATE OF INCORPORATION
            SUBSIDIARY                                  OR ORGANIZATION
            ----------                                  

1.       Calling Card Company, Inc.                         New York

2.       New Lauderdale L.C.                                Florida

3.       N.L. Corp.                                         Delaware

4.       Creative Direct Marketing, Inc.                    Delaware

5.       Quintel Hair Products, Inc.                        Delaware

6.       Quintel Products, Inc.                             Delaware

7.       Quintelco., Inc.                                   Delaware

8.       Quintel Psychic Zone, Inc.                         Delaware

9.       Quintel LaBuick Products, LLC                      Delaware

10.      Quintel Cellular, LLC                              Delaware

11.      Quintelcomm, Inc.                                  Delaware

12.      Quintel Financial Information Services, Inc.       Delaware